Conspiracy of human intelligence.

If sirnex still refuses to see the obvious logic in what you are saying then I submit that as proof that she/he has accepted today's
understanding as a dogmatic church that can't be argued with or changed in any way.

Well, you're barking up the wrong tree, because I don't remember reading a thing about it in the book that I read. I remember reading pages
upon pages detailing experimental set-ups, recorded data, and the data's interpretation by Dr. Tiller and his staff at MIT, but that's neither here
nor there and has nothing to do with this thread.

My thread, so who cares. I certainly don't. Hell, talk about peanut butter if you want.

This is the book you read correct? Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality, and Consciousness.

I know you said it was in the trunk of someone's car. The review says it is mentioned in the first chapter, maybe you just forgot? I'm trying to
find more information on it right now.

Yes, I saw all that already, but I clearly asked you to address the other 10 examples.

All of those thing's were discovered and eventually found to be proven.

The difference between those and the last three is that the last three are stating something by yourself that is non-existent in which you still
refuse to answer to for some reason.

I know of no one who says baloney to entanglement, I know of no one who says baloney to the bodies natural healing ability and the consciousness claim
is disregarding the chemical nature of the physical brain as a component of it.

I would also like to point out that you initially ignored my reply to the last three *before* you demanded I remark on the other examples. Just
nitpicking.

There is light matter, dark matter, light energy and dark energy which science is now aware of and trying to figure out.

Did you not see me reply to that statement saying that no, science has *not* discovered, but rather invented in order to explain the problems with the
current standard model?

Man, wtf is in the water these days! Both of you are so forgetful today and unable to see certain points of your own arguments that I am raising here.
I think maybe we should lobby against dumping pollutants and chemicals in the water. o.0

Originally posted by sirnex
This is the book you read correct? Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality, and Consciousness.

I know you said it was in the trunk of someone's car. The review says it is mentioned in the first chapter, maybe you just forgot? I'm trying to
find more information on it right now.

I probably did forget, yes. I remember enough to know it obviously wasn't critical to the main body of work presented in the book.

Yes, I saw all that already, but I clearly asked you to address the other 10 examples.

All of those thing's were discovered and eventually found to be proven.

Eventually.

So in the times when it hadn't been proven yet, why are you going to make yourself look like a fool and argue as if you know better and it
will never be proven, when you can't possibly know any better?

I probably did forget, yes. I remember enough to know it obviously wasn't critical to the main body of work presented in the book.

I disagree, I believe it would be *very* critical as to what the rest of the book is postulating. I mean, let's utilize at least a shred of common
sense with that claim towards acupuncture. If he can make such a bold *wrong* statement like that, then how seriously can we take the rest of the
work.

So in the times when it hadn't been proven yet, why are you going to make yourself look like a fool and argue as if you know better and it
will never be proven, when you can't possibly know any better?

I would like to point out that this entire crap spouting is in no way an attempt to refute any of the points that I raised about the last three
examples. Your still not focusing that intent hard enough. Be one with the force young Skywalker!

I probably did forget, yes. I remember enough to know it obviously wasn't critical to the main body of work presented in the book.

I disagree, I believe it would be *very* critical as to what the rest of the book is postulating.

I read the entire book, you read an online summary of it.

Enough said...

I mean, let's utilize at least a shred of common sense

Yes, let's.

I already said I am not that familiar with the subject of acupuncture. You're not interested in it, you're interested in an argument to feed your
ego. You get a endorphin buzz arguing with people online. If you were actually interested you'd go look up whatever it is that's bothering you
instead of pestering me about it when I've made it clear several times now I neither know much about the subject nor particularly care to listen to
you rant on about it when you are obviously extremely biased.

And yet you concede to the possibility that this particular issue may have slipped your memory as you were more concerned with the technical aspects
of the book.

I already said I am not that familiar with the subject of acupuncture.

I'm well aware of that statement, but I wasn't asking of your personal knowledge of the subject. Instead, I was asking about the topic as it was
discussed in the first chapter of the book. In which, again, you conceded to the fact that it may have slipped your memory.

You're not interested in it, you're interested in an argument to feed your ego. You get a endorphin buzz arguing with people online. If you
were actually interested you'd go look up whatever it is that's bothering you instead of pestering me about it when I've made it clear several
times now I neither know much about the subject

What a presumptuous way to misrepresent what I've been arguing this entire time. Hell, it's the whole basis for the topic of the thread. Let's go
over the argument again. I am simply against people misusing or using a misunderstanding of science in an attempt to "prove" their assumptions
without any further evidences for those assumptions and I am against using assumptions to prove assumptions as that is more of an exercise in
stupidity and futility.

nor particularly care to listen to you rant on about it when you are obviously extremely biased.

Ah, so now we're going to claim that in light of Tiller *which again I would like to point out that you concede to the possibility this slipped your
memory*, is blatantly wrong about the weak electromagnetic force, that his own fault of one aspect of science now make's it a wrongful bias towards
the rest of his work.

So, I'm just some big mean biased bad guy and Tiller is still such a wonderful man who has it all right? OH BALONEY!

By the way, how is that power of intent working out for you? I noticed you still failed to refute the three points I raised. I'm sure there is a real
good reason or argument coming. Or are you going to keep up with the verbalized bowel movements? I just love a good crap show!

[EDIT TO ADD]

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe there is something to this. I've been so positively intent that you would be unable to reasonably answer
my queries and hell... here we have it folks, PROOF IT WORKS!

And yet you concede to the possibility that this particular issue may have slipped your memory as you were more concerned with the technical aspects
of the book.

I was more concerned with the main subject of the book, which wasn't acupuncture.

I am simply against people misusing or using a misunderstanding of science in an attempt to "prove" their assumptions without any further
evidences for those assumptions and I am against using assumptions to prove assumptions as that is more of an exercise in stupidity and
futility.

That's not at all what you are doing here. Tiller IS doing science, you haven't even seen his work, and you try to piss all over it anyway even
though there is nothing out there replicating and contradicting his work.

I'm not getting into that discussion again, though. I've made my point. It's clear where you stand on this issue; time will tell how justified
your opinions are.

I was more concerned with the main subject of the book, which wasn't acupuncture.

Right, and from your description, was a technical scientific document, but if Tiller can get the science wrong on one thing right off the bat then how
valid is the rest of the work? I mean, that acupuncture problem is just insanely *huge* that it can't be ignored.

That's not at all what you are doing here.

Tiller got the acupuncture "science" claim *wrong*, I dislike and argue against wrong garbage that I see. Appears that *is* what I am doing.

Tiller IS doing science, you haven't even seen his work, and you try to piss all over it anyway even though there is nothing out there
replicating and contradicting his work.

I read one paper so far in which I did try to discuss a couple of points with you and you decided to ignore those points as well. So yes, I have seen
some, at least one example of his work. Perhaps no one is attempting to replicate his work because of his acupuncture claim being blatantly wrong as
well as his views on kirlian photography. The scientific community doesn't normally give much attention to pseudoscience.

I'm not getting into that discussion again, though. I've made my point. It's clear where you stand on this issue; time will tell how
justified your opinions are.

Hell, the only reason your backing out rather than nutting up and refuting those three points is because... *you can't*. This whole discussion has
been nothing more than you backing away like a wet abused half drown animal in fear. You've done nothing more than ignore very valid inquiries and
settled on crap spouting as a way of validating your arguments. Your worthless and your power of intent sucks. You haven't even managed to focus hard
enough to make the problems I raised go away.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.